Pot odds etc

[Rozza1]

Just ordered 'Mathematics of poker' from waterstones at £30 i hope it's as good as it sounds

[Sheriff Fatman]

Just ordered 'Mathematics of poker' from waterstones at £30 i hope it's as good as it sounds

£30!!!  The RRP is $29.95 so it looks as though the usual (convert $ to £) pricing is going on there.

Not sure what lead time they've quoted on it but the book only went to the printers on 2nd November, and won't be ready for shipment until ~27th November in the USA.  It normally takes a while longer for chains such as Waterstones to get copies from the publishers.

Sheriff

[Rozza1]

yeah they just sent me an email to say they have ordered it direct from the publisher and will keep me informed, be handy if it came in time to read it before the APAT event @ Newcastle but i cant see it.

[byronkincaid]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=7893096&page=0&vc=1

http://www.headsupclub.com/aprock/2006/11/the-math-of-poker/

I'm gonna wait until I see a review which indicates I might be able to understand more than a page or two.

Make no mistake, unless you really like math, you will find the book tough

Oh well

http://terrencechan.livejournal.com/145103.html

[Sheriff Fatman]

yeah they just sent me an email to say they have ordered it direct from the publisher and will keep me informed, be handy if it came in time to read it before the APAT event @ Newcastle but i cant see it.

OK, the race is on.  Out of intrigue I've ordered direct from the US at a cost of $42.95 including shipping (payable by Neteller, which is handy as no conversion costs).  I'm intrigued to see what difference there is in delivery times (yes I'm that sad!)

Sheriff

[SupaMonkey]

All the maths i know (regarding poker) is;

Pot odds with two cards to come = 4* no. of outs, minus a bit if this number is 30% or greater and add a bit if this number is 20% or less.

Pot odds with one card to come = 2*no. of outs + a bit

14 outs with two cards to is 50-50 approx (slightly in you favour).

Chance of hitting a set on a flop is 1-7.5 or 1/8.5.

Chance of hitting a flop 1-2 or 1/3.

Chance of hittng two pair on the flop 1-48 or 1/49 (i think, flushy told me that one).

50% chance of an overcard on a flop when you hold JJ.

Two high cards vs two low cards = 5-3 (or 3/8 for the lower hand).

A pair vs. a hand with only one card higher than the pair is 5-2 fav.

Pair against lower pair is 4.5-1 fav.

Pair vs. two overcards = 55-45 fav.

Someone is probably going to tell me one of those is wrong, but i hope this helps all the same.

ps. do i need to know anything else.

[totalise]

Make no mistake, unless you really like math, you will find the book tough

hehe, well this should go without saying. Its not a cook-book like Harrington where they just tell you what to do and you follow the instructions like a robot, its a book that encourages thinking and analysing. It is going to be very hard, it will take a long time to understand fully what they are saying, and some of the stuff in there will be next to useless for almost every poker-game in the world, but the time you spend studying it will definately have a positive effect on your game, and it will open up your eyes.

The one thing about mathematics in poker is that it takes a set of assumptions, and then you can calculate pretty clinically the path that maximizes your expectation on the hand. Doubleup alludes to it earlier wher he says hand reading skills are important, because if you aren't reading the situations correctly, all the math in the world wont be of much use to you, because naturally your "assumptions" wont be accurate.

A simple example might be:

lets say on the river the pot is $20 and you and your opponent have $20 each remaining. If he will call a $20 bet 80% of the time and a $10 bet 100% of the time, which is a more profitable bet to make?

The hard part (and the bit that most people get wrong) is coming to the conclusion that they will call 80%/100% with regards to the differing bet sizes... most people use fantasy math to justify their actions (ie putting people on AK when they have a medium pocket pair, and putting them on a medium pocket pair when they have AK)... the hardest part is to appraise each and every situation with complete clarity and accurately come to the said assumptions about the situation, your opponents likely course of actions given bet sizes, and your reactions to their reactions. If you cant do this, then the math wont really help you much at all. If you CAN do this, then getting a deeper understanding of the math will incerase your profit levels by a huge amount. Sklansky touches on this a lot on his No Limit Theory and Practise book, which should be essential reading for anyone who wants to improve.

Again, if you are looking for a book that will tell you to move in from 3rd position with a XZ of Q and a M of 1.23sqrt^2, then this book (in my opinion) wont do that. It will concentrate more on the base theory and encourage you to come to your decisions with an open mind, and give you a deeeper understanding of why a move is correct/wrong, and from the perspective of equity maximization, rather then being scared of losing, not wanting to go broke in the first level after driving 3 hours to play a tourney, or anything else.

[SupaMonkey]

Driving miles to get to a tourney, going broke in the first few hands, getting pissed off, driving home at twice the speed limit, getting caught and having to cough up 60 quid is defintely a -EV play.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Nice post Totalise.

I'm a bit of a maths 'saddo' so this book is of interest to me.  However, I don't expect it to be a book on calculating pot odds, etc (or if it is then only in the briefest sense).

However, the 'maths' of poker goes way beyond this and, to me, its of interest from a theoretical point of view.  Many others would see it as being totally unnecessary and going way too far.  Its very much a question of 'each to their own'.

For example, this book looks to have a lot of material on game theory type approaches, which focuses on achieving a strategy which is, to all intents and purposes, unexploitable.  This generally only applies to 'simplified' games, so is most applicable to heads up poker, rather than full-ring play.  Therefore its by no means a 'necessary' part of poker but, for someone like me with a maths background, its challenging and interesting.  Others would probably prefer to undergo some form of dental torture rather than read this type of thing so, with 'mathematical' poker texts more than a typical poker books, there's a much greater chance of being disappointed by a purchase if you don't know what you are letting yourself in for.

I think the other misconception that people have about the maths of poker, as totalise alluded to, is that some people expect to find a blueprint strategy on how to play from understanding the maths.  This is not the case either.  No book will ever give you this but a text such as 'The Mathematics of Poker' (or even 'The Theory Of Poker' which is not a maths-specific text) will give you much more 'food for thought' than you probably had before.

Sheriff

[Graham C]

What's some good books for NLHE cash games? Do 2+2 do some NLHE cash strategy books?

[Sheriff Fatman]

What's some good books for NLHE cash games? Do 2+2 do some NLHE cash strategy books?

They've got 2 scheduled to come out in the next few months (or they did last time I looked).  One is HOH4 - aimed at NL ring games.  The other is Small Stakes No Limit Holdem by Ed Miller (his limit book was fantastic so if this is anywhere close it'll be a great read).

No Limit Holdem Theory And Practice by Sklansky/Miller is a good read but more theoretical in nature to the above two titles.  Its best described as the NLHE version of 'Theory Of Poker'.

Sheriff

[thetank]

Sklansky's No Limit musings are of limited use IMHO.

[Sheriff Fatman]

I wasn't sure about it at first when I started reading it but there is some good content in there.  I have high expectations of the other two titles though.

Forgot to mention Phil Gordon's 'Little Green Book' which is a good general NLHE text.

[totalise]

Sklansky's No Limit musings are of limited use IMHO.

This is probably true for a lot of the online games, they make too many assumptions as to the quality of your opponent. the general concepts behind the thinking are still pretty useful though. Its all about the eye of the beholder, if you go into a book expecting someone to tell you the way to play the game, you are going to come up short, if you go into it hoping they will teach you how to think about the game, its a pretty good book for those that probably dont think as much as they should. (i just re-read it and it looks like it is aimed at you personally, that isn't the case whatsoever)

the Small Stakes No Limit book should be a pretty good one, Matt Flynn is a tremendously knowledgable person

I have mixed feelings about the little green book, it touches on things that require a lot more writing to fully explain them, but doesnt go into enough detail.. so you end up just blindly following what he says without adequately understanding why, and (as you will have guessed by now) I hate books that instruct, rather then educate.

[Sheriff Fatman]

I have mixed feelings about the little green book, it touches on things that require a lot more writing to fully explain them, but doesnt go into enough detail.. so you end up just blindly following what he says without adequately understanding why, and (as you will have guessed by now) I hate books that instruct, rather then educate.

Fair comment but I do think its worthwhile for a lot of folk on here as its relatively easy reading, compartmentalised into small sections, and not as heavy going as one of the theoretical tomes.  I think that anyone who likes the Harrington books will probably like the 'Little Green Book'.  I couldn't say the same for NLHE Theory & Practice as its a totally different type of book and someone who's only read HOH will probably be disappointed by it as its not as instantly accessible.

Again its all to do with expectations.  I'm used to Sklansky's books, particularly Theory Of Poker, so was expecting something along similar lines.  Like many of his books, it takes several reads to get the full benefit from it so the value isn't instantly obvious.